Abbott v Brefni Corporate Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPICMP 491

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Abbott v Brefni Corporate Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPICMP 491
APPELLANT:	Greg Abbott
RESPONDENT:	Brefni Corporate Pty Ltd
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Graham Blom
DATE OF DECISION:	9 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); appeal against Medical Assessor’s (MA) assessment of impairment in relation to psychiatric and psychological disorders; appellant alleged that error in history taken by MA concerning a person other than the claimant in the initial MAC infected the entire assessment process; later attempt by MA to correct error in subsequent certificate; demonstrable error found; failure to explain path of reasoning in sufficient detail; assessment where there is more than a mere difference of opinion on a matter about which reasonable minds may differ; failure to consider relevant and significant material; New South Wales Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales, Mahenthirarasa v State Rail Authority of New South Wales, Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak, Campbelltown City Council v Vegan, Queanbeyan Racing Club Ltd v Burton, Merza v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission and Anor, Ferguson v State of New South Wales, Parker v Select Civil Pty Limited, Vitaz v Westform (NSW) Pty Ltd, Western Sydney Local Health District v Chan, Prasad v Workers Compensation Commission, Tattersall v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW and Anor, Ballas v Department of Education (NSW), and Coca-Cola Europacific Partners API Pty Ltd v Pombinho considered; Held – having found error, the Appeal Panel determined a further medical examination of the appellant was required, which provided different assessments to the MA; the Appeal Panel adopted those assessments; MAC revoked and new MAC issued.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 27 February 2025, Greg Abbott (the appellant) lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor (the Appeal). The relevant medical dispute was assessed by Medical Assessor Ankur Gupta (the Medical Assessor), who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 14 February 2025.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The President’s delegate has been satisfied (in accordance with her decision dated 25 March 2025) that, on the face of the application, at least one ground of appeal has been made out. The Appeal Panel has therefore been convened and it has conducted a review of the original medical assessment - limited to the grounds of appeal on which the Appeal is made.
Rule 128 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC7 set out the practice and procedure in relation to the medical appeal process under s 328 of the 1998 Act. An appeal panel determines its own procedures in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Abbott v Brefni Corporate Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 491
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Abbott brought an appeal against the assessment of his impairment by the Medical Assessor (MA) in relation to psychiatric and psychological disorders, under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Abbott claimed that the initial assessment was flawed due to an error in the history taken by the MA, which involved information concerning a person other than Abbott. This error, Abbott argued, infected the entire assessment process. The MA later attempted to correct the error in a subsequent certificate, but Abbott still maintained that the assessment was flawed due to the MA's failure to sufficiently explain the reasoning behind the assessment and the failure to consider relevant and significant material.

The court had to decide whether the MA's assessment was legally sound and whether the Appeal Panel was correct in revoking the Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) and issuing a new one. The legal issues involved determining whether the error in the MA's assessment was merely a difference of opinion or if it was a demonstrable error that required the Appeal Panel to adopt a different assessment. The court also had to consider whether the MA's failure to sufficiently explain the reasoning behind the assessment and the failure to consider relevant material amounted to a legally flawed assessment.

The Appeal Panel found that there was a demonstrable error in the MA's assessment due to the incorrect history taken and the failure to sufficiently explain the path of reasoning. The Appeal Panel also found that the MA failed to consider relevant and significant material. The court referred to several cases to support the decision that the assessment was flawed and that the Appeal Panel was correct in revoking the MAC and issuing a new one. The Appeal Panel determined that a further medical examination of Abbott was required, which provided different assessments to the MA. The Appeal Panel adopted those assessments, revoked the original MAC, and issued a new MAC.

The final orders included the revocation of the original MAC and the issuance of a new MAC based on the assessments provided by the further medical examination.

Orders